FAA user fees

[HelloNewman]

so mr wrx why should the general tax payers pay for you to dink around in your cessna? Don't worry though I see you are a commercial student. In no time you will have your CFI and can kick back and let your students pay the user fees.

 

[wrxpilot]

so mr wrx why should the general tax payers pay for you to dink around in your cessna? Don't worry though I see you are a commercial student. In no time you will have your CFI and can kick back and let your students pay the user fees.

Why should the public continuously bail out the major airlines? Why should I have to pay county taxes for children to go to school when I don't plan on ever having kids? Why should I pay for the fire dept when I haven't had a fire?

The public does not pay the majority of the taxes either... GA pays fuel taxes and uses but a fraction of the ATC system. The US taxpayer benefits from ATC services in numerous indirect ways, including mail, freight, scheduled airline service, air ambulance service, etc.

I'll be a CFI way before the user fees could potentially take place. Doesn't matter - I don't want to see future GA pilots get reemed and I will not standby and watch General Aviation be destroyed. Unlike you and your selfish friend "sicuvaflight", I do what I can to pull my weight with GA (which isn't much, but at least I try).

Get it through your head - Joe Sixpack and myself are not putting a burden on ATC services. What puts a strain on ATC services are the busy "pushes" that are a result of airline hub style service.

 

[siucavflight]

Why should the public continuously bail out the major airlines? Why should I have to pay county taxes for children to go to school when I don't plan on ever having kids? Why should I pay for the fire dept when I haven't had a fire?

The public does not pay the majority of the taxes either... GA pays fuel taxes and uses but a fraction of the ATC system. The US taxpayer benefits from ATC services in numerous indirect ways, including mail, freight, scheduled airline service, air ambulance service, etc.

I'll be a CFI way before the user fees could potentially take place. Doesn't matter - I don't want to see future GA pilots get reemed and I will not standby and watch General Aviation be destroyed. Unlike you and your selfish friend "sicuvaflight", I do what I can to pull my weight with GA (which isn't much, but at least I try).

Get it through your head - Joe Sixpack and myself are not putting a burden on ATC services. What puts a strain on ATC services are the busy "pushes" that are a result of airline hub style service.

You make good points, you do not have children and still pay for school. My point is not that it is unfair for taxpayers to pay for our ATC system(I think that it is more then fair), the only advantage I see to a user based system is that it is going to create more job opportunities for guys like us, not saying that it is a morally good position to take, just stating the obvious.
In all reality would I be happy to see this? No, actually I would not I own half of a Cirrus and enjoy flying it on my days off and usually fly IFR. I just felt like stirring the pot a little bit.

 

[flyer172r]

it is going to create more job opportunities for guys like us, not saying that it is a morally good position to take, just stating the obvious.

Considering that all non-airline jobs will pretty much die if user fees pass, all the professional pilots who currently don't fly for the airlines will pretty much have to make the move. Ergo, no increase in the "pilot shortage."

 

[svcta]

How is there any way to assume that user fees will translate in to more jobs? If it's student start ups that you think will taper off, I'm sure that that would be offset by the number of operators that would be forced out of the system due to cheapitude or out of biz. all together due to safety violations.

Addition: Why do the airlines assume that their taxes would be reduced? A change in the system would never reduce the cost for one side because that would result in a revenue-neutral change, which the gub'ment ain't in the habit of making. They want more $$, not changes for the same $$.

Of course that questions disregards the position that the airlines don't create the problem at hand. Let's be realistic: when you're out there in the system you hear a lot more recognizable callsigns than "novembers". Does anyone have the time to research a little? How many airplanes do DAL, UAL, NWA, SWA, CAL, JIA, XJT, Eagle, Pinnacle, Jblu, Skyw, Colgan, (and the list of 121s goes on) VS. the part 91 operators in the IFR system at any given point in time? This isn't a rhetorical question as far as I know because the answer may surprise me. Anyone?

 

[Bandit60]

I read in Aviation Week that the airlines pay something like 95% (or thereabouts; I don't have it in front of me) of the monies collected in fuel taxes, and that this new plan would bring their contribution down to 72% (again, or something), which is more in line with their usage.

It occurred to me that the airlines need a sophisticated ATC system more than the GA and business planes do. That's not to say the smaller operators don't need it; certainly, they do. But they have more options as to when, where, how, and if they fly. They have a smaller and more understanding clientele. They don't have to convince the little old lady from Ipanema that they are as safe as Amtrak or Greyhound. Their need for full ATC services is somewhat less than that of the airlines.

If ATC were a private business-- were it my private business-- I'd find an excuse to charge the airlines a little more. Maybe around 20% more. Why? Because you make your money where you can. The airlines themselves understand this; it is why First Class is priced THREE TIMES as much as Economy Class.

So, I'm unswayed by the argument that FAA user fees are more "fair". A product or service is worth what you can get people to pay for it, not what it costs you to provide. What it costs you to provide is completely irrelevant. If we want a robust, healthy system, we will continue to fund it in a way that factors in people's need for it. Fuel taxes are simple, practical way of approximating that.

I may be wrong but my understanding is that airlines do NOT pay a fuel tax like general avaition does. Are you sure you read the article right? Second point..how do you figure that our passengers are more understanding. You must not have ever flown in the corporate world. If anything, I think sometimes they are just the opposite.

 

[Alamanach]

I may be wrong but my understanding is that airlines do NOT pay a fuel tax like general avaition does. Are you sure you read the article right? Second point..how do you figure that our passengers are more understanding. You must not have ever flown in the corporate world. If anything, I think sometimes they are just the opposite.

From the February 19, 2007 issue of Aviation Week:

User fees and revamped fuel taxes would reduce the airlines' share of ATC operating expenses from the roughly 95% they currently pay to the 73% the FAA calculates as their actual share... In October 2008, the FAA would drop the current taxes and fees that provide revenue to the trust fund. In 2005, two-thirds of these revenues came from a 7.5% excise tax on airplane tickets, and 18% from international arrival and departure taxes. Other sources include a cargo waybill tax, and commercial and noncommercial fuel taxes.

You're right, I haven't flown corporate aviation. I made my assumption imagining that the corporate pilot can explain to his handful of intelligent passengers what's going on. But then I think of the knee-jerk dimwits I work for, and I see your point. Touche.

I still say charging the airlines what amounts to a premium makes some business sense; they need the system much more than others. You make your money where you can. Changing this funding system to be more "fair" will be deleterious in every direction; we'll have less revenue coming in, fewer planes flying, and fewer and less experienced pilots.

 

[cessna_driver2]

No matter what you charge the airlines, Do you honestly believe the airlines will pay for it out of their own revenue? Of course not, so it comes down to the tax payer getting the shaft once again. Airline tickets will go up, (due to additional fees passed from the airlines to the passenger) and once again, I'll get stuck paying the bill.

So let put it down like this, would the airlines pay for a 336% hike on jet fuel that is sold (in bulk by the way.) to all 121 operators? Or even better increasing the corporate income tax of the airlines itself by 336%. HECK NO. They would fight tooth and nail.

Right now, the airlines buy contracts of fuel that last upto a few years. Kinda like a futures thing. They make a contract with a fuel supplier to purchase so many millions of gallons for a set period of time. (That's one other reason why the legacy can't stand Southwest. They have been buying fuel at a cheaper rate for the past several years and it's killing them.)
Can you imagine how much money the gov't would make on .70 cents more now per the millions of gallons the airlines use? Just for 1 million gallons of fuel at .70 cents tax per gallon, that would be 700,000 dollars in taxes the airline would pay. Do you really think the airlines would go for that?

So lets get away from fuel for a quick second. Let's look at past moderization overruns the FAA have implemented & congress had to stop due to money. Anyone remember the microwave landing system or even the advance automation system (AAS) these programs were shut down by Congress due to spiralling, uncontrolled spending by the FAA. Look how long it's taking WAAS system. Back in 97 I did a report for flight school on GPS precision appraches. What has happened to these?

If you take the FAA out of government, you are giving a blank check to corporate america which has no legal governing body to control it. Look at Enron and worldcom, haliburton? The list will continue. The only draw back is, if the airlines have control of the system all of our lives will be in their hands.

You also say that: "if user fees go into effect, it will decrease pilots & give me my large 6 figure salaries back!" That's a bunch of hog wash. It's not going to get you any more money. What is will do is put more pressure on you to fly more legs. When they start having pilot break the 8 hour duty day, who do you think will be the first to change that requirement. Remember, congress has no say in control of the FAA. I can see it now:

"Pilot's do not hand fly these aircraft anymore, it done all through autopilot, they just sit up there, read magazines, flirt the FA, & tell rude, crude jokes. Why don't they start work say 10 - 14 hour days. Heck they do nothing but sit and watch the guages and talk on the radios."

Who would stand up for your rights then... Your over paid triple dipping union leader who is guarenteed to make 6-8 figures a year just to represent you? They don't care as long as the money keeps pooring in.

In the end, we all will lose... I just hope everyone understands what is really happening.

 

[jbDC9]

So, I'm a little slow on getting around to reading this thread, but I gotta say that I'm amazed at the attitudes of Siucavflight and HelloDooshbag... err, Newman. Could you two retards be more selfish and short sighted?? Siu actually admits to a bit of flamebaiting and trolling, but the selfishness is there. Newman, on the other hand, is just a complete and total idiot... either that or he's just really good at baiting and trolling. Read a few of his other posts on the regional boards and you'll see what I mean.

so mr wrx why should the general tax payers pay for you to dink around in your cessna? Don't worry though I see you are a commercial student. In no time you will have your CFI and can kick back and let your students pay the user fees.

So Mr Newman, you stupidly slam Wrxpilot when makes several valid points. Do you have kids newman? Do they go to a public school? I don't have kids and never will, so please tell me why the fu.ck I should pay school taxes so that your little ankle biters can go to school? But seriously, I hope you don't have kids; stupid people such as yourself shouldn't be allowed to breed and contaminate the gene pool.

Yes GA is where most of us started that fact can not be denied. For those of us at the airlines though we no longer need GA. I have not stepped foot in a GA aircraft for quite a while.

Those of us at the airlines don't need GA?? Idiot. I'm "at the airlines" and I need GA. I own and fly an RV-8 and have absolutely no desire to cough up another buck per gallon on avgas just to keep you happy. But what the hey, if you haven't been in a GA aircraft for quite a while, the rest of us "at the airlines" guys should stay away from them as well huh?

Sorry for the rant, but these two dudes are just nuts by saying they want to snuff the life out of GA... never mind the fact that that's where they came from. Unbelievable.

 

[Nolife]

Glad to see so many folks against users fees. AOPA has put out names of a few key legislators to whom you should should a fax. Check out AOPA's website for more details.

 

[BenderGonzales]

There is more to aviation that just airline jobs:
Corporate (how many Lears and other light jets are out there?)
On demand freight
135

Not every one of these companies would be able to absorb user fees. Thousands of jobs would be lost.

 

[A Squared]

They don't have to convince the little old lady from Ipanema that they are as safe as Amtrak or Greyhound.

OK, this is wrong in so many ways. First off, Ipanema is a long way from the US. It's a district in Rio de Janerio, one the areas next to the beach (the next beach down from Copacabana) The popular reference is not a little old lady from Ipanema. It's the *girl* from Ipanema, it was the title of a popular song, it was about a hottie that walked down to the beach every day and left the locals standing there drooling with thier tounges henging out ... not a little old lady at all. There really was a "girl from Ipanema" and she appered in the Brazilian edition of Playboy twice.

 

[Alamanach]

OK, this is wrong in so many ways. First off, Ipanema is a long way from the US. It's a district in Rio de Janerio, one the areas next to the beach (the next beach down from Copacabana) The popular reference is not a little old lady from Ipanema. It's the *girl* from Ipanema, it was the title of a popular song, it was about a hottie that walked down to the beach every day and left the locals standing there drooling with thier tounges henging out ... not a little old lady at all. There really was a "girl from Ipanema" and she appered in the Brazilian edition of Playboy twice.

And her name was Heloise Pinero, and she was 19 when she inspired the song, and she owns a boutique in southern California, and I knew all this already (Getz Gilberto is one of my favorite albums), and now you're the second person on this thread to catch me in a dumb mistake. :0

(Of course, with my batting average so far, I've probably gone and misspelled her name or something.)

Thanks for the correction. I think I'll go sit quietly in the corner for a little while...

 

[finnjl]

If this passes it will be the end of general aviation. Aviation will be untouchable to all but the very wealthy. Fractionals will go away. Companies will sell their corporate jet. Airline management will smile all the way to the bank with their fat bonus. They are the folks pushing for this.

 

[finnjl]

Good and when they ignore your letter and pass the bill anyway make sure you get that bank account ready. We won't be more like europe, this is called pulling your own weight. Time for the GA guys to help pay what the airlines have been paying for years. The taxes are out of whack and its time to correct that. If you don't wanna pay to play then don't try and use up the airspace when you don't need to. Fly VFR and save yourself the headaches.

Ok that is fare. I am more concerned of the general aviation fuel tax. I think the airlines should pay the tax as well. They do not in the proposal. But, the airlines do not pay for these services every passenger does in the ticket tax, which as around 5 bucks in every ticket sold.

 

[svcta]

No matter what you charge the airlines, Do you honestly believe the airlines will pay for it out of their own revenue? Of course not, so it comes down to the tax payer getting the shaft once again. Airline tickets will go up, (due to additional fees passed from the airlines to the passenger) and once again, I'll get stuck paying the bill.

You are under the mistaken belief that air travel is something more than an option for you to get from "A" to "B". If you can't afford it take the train, bus, drive yourself, or don't go. Taking the airlines is not a god-given right. Or any other kind of right for that matter. It was even more expensive in the past.

 

[cessna_driver2]

You are under the mistaken belief that air travel is something more than an option for you to get from "A" to "B". If you can't afford it take the train, bus, drive yourself, or don't go. Taking the airlines is not a god-given right. Or any other kind of right for that matter. It was even more expensive in the past.

I never once said the airlines were a god-given right. In fact the only time I fly the airlines is when work sends me out or when I can't drive it in 24 hours or less.

What does bother me more is how the airlines are using the millions of dollars (taxpayers and front line employees have sacraficed while they retain their bonuses & hefty pay) to take control of something that should never be in anyone private company. The national airspace system is too important to remove government oversight and control. It also bothers me is the story that the FAA & airlines cooked up saying it would be to the benefit of everyone. ATC is already benefits the airlines. We all see how much more control they want!

Almost all other freedoms have been given away for a false sense of security. Lets not let this last freedom slip through out graps.

 

[SDF2BUF2MCO]

In the end, we all will lose... I just hope everyone understands what is really happening.

Sums it up. If they implement user fees and GA folks drastically decrease their flying then the government will have to tax something else (the airline pax?) to make up for the "lost" tax revenue. Kind of like smoking...if they ban it all together then they'll have to find another way to make up the lost taxes. Politicians are addicted to money.

 

[time builder]

http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/070307b/index.html

President Bush Offers Ways To Ease Air Traffic Gridlock

Wednesday, March 07, 2007
SUSIE GHARIB: Anyone who's been to an airport lately will tell you the skies are crowded and the delays seem to be getting worse. To cope with the congestion, the Bush administration wants to rewrite the rules on who pays to support the air traffic control system. Congress takes up that issue tomorrow. Darren Gersh has a preview.
DARREN GERSH, NIGHTLY BUSINESS REPORT CORRESPONDENT: They call them very light jets, small enough and cheap enough, your dentist might be able to buy one. Three thousand are expected to roll off manufacturing lines over the next decade. Add to that as many as 5,000 new business jets and a few thousand new commercial jet liners and there will soon be a lot more blips on air traffic control radar screens across the country. Jim May says that's the problem. May lobbies for the nation's airlines in Washington.
JIM MAY, CEO, AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION: A blip is a blip is a blip, from the perspective of the air traffic controller. The air traffic controller doesn't care whether it's a VLJ, a Citation 10, a 737. What they care about is the fact that it takes them as much time and energy to control each of those planes.
GERSH: Right now, all those blips do not pay the same amount to support the air traffic control system. Ticket taxes and other fees on airlines and their passengers fund more than 90 percent of it. But the Federal Aviation Administration figures those airlines account for 73 percent of the system's costs. The Bush administration wants to change that by tripling fuel taxes on corporate jets and private planes. At the National Business Aviation Association, Ed Bolen says his members use smaller, less crowed airports. And they are now being asked to pay for the congestion and costs caused by commercial jetliners.
ED BOLEN, CEO, NATIONAL BUSINESS AVIATION ASSOCIATION: So the airlines goal of having all airplanes pay the same, whether they have three passengers, 30 passengers or 300 passengers, is just not viable in the aviation world. It's been rejected and it doesn't make sense, if you look at airline economics.
GERSH: The FAA says it needs more reliable funding in order to replace its old radar system with more advanced satellite navigation. But aviation analyst Richard Aboulafia says Congress will have some tough questions for the FAA.
RICHARD ABOULAFIA, VICE PRESIDENT, TEAL GROUP: Does the expansion need to happen along the lines forecasted by the FAA and if it does, who pays? Is it the airline community or is it the private aviation community?
GERSH: For now, this battle has taken place under the radar, but it is expected to turn into one of the year's toughest lobbying contests, pitting airlines and their passengers against business executives and hundreds of thousands of private pilots. Darren Gersh, NIGHTLY BUSINESS REPORT, Washington.